Agile F-35 High Wing Loading

[Corsair1963]

I guess the reason why a lot of people are so unsure about the F-35s maneuverability is because most pilots who have flown it have this statement.

"In a clean configuration the F-16 will out turn an F-35 (as well as most other aircraft). But in armed configuration, an F-16 carries, external fuel tanks, bombs, missiles and pods, the F-35 will out perform it.

In the back of everyone's minds is, well ofcourse, why would an F-16 haul EFTs, and bombs if it needs agility?
In the event of an emergency, any F-16 pilot would most certainly drop EFTs and A/G ordnance to get as much of a performance boost as possible.

Question is, how much load does the F-16 have to carry to accurately match the F-35A's performance?
(2 wing tip AMRAAMs? One centerline EFT? Both?)

Are there any pilots who have made this comparison already, like saying, "the F-35 flies like a Viper with a light load of 2 wingtip Slammers"

No, what has been said is the F-35 will match or exceed the performance of a clean late block (50/52) F-16.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I have not seen clean, I have seen "with centerline fuel tank" used as the reference.

[zero-one]

No, what has been said is the F-35 will match or exceed the performance of a clean late block (50/52) F-16.

Certainly not a clean one
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... dre-start/

A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons,external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet’sperformance. The F-35′s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and[turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35,”Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I thinkwould probably outperform it.”

[basher54321]

That from zero is closer to what I remember regarding airframe performance although defining what one means by "performance" would be good:

Here's another on acceleration:

Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley
According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html

[Corsair1963]

That from zero is closer to what I remember regarding airframe performance although defining what one means by "performance" would be good:

Here's another on acceleration:

Lockheed Martin F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley
According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html

Honestly, a lot of material on the performance capabilities of the F-35 as it relates to a number of other aircraft like the Viper, Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Raptor. The critics just choose to ignore it...

[eskodas]

And more

“turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16”

Col De Smit viewtopic.php?f=59&t=26752

also this from nowegian presentation http://i.imgur.com/iGva5Jb.jpg


Basically the gist is that it's acceleration is the same as a clean F-16 at subsonic and same as a moderately loaded F-16 in transonic, it's turning is the same as a moderately loaded F-16 at low altitude or a lightly loaded F-16 at high altitude, plus it has excellent AoA and low speed handling unlike the F-16 and like the F-18. Which is all what they wanted.

[bring_it_on]

Video Game simulations by armchair war planners aside, the Pentagon sanctioned not one but two intense simulated/Virtual combat air-to-air combat effectiveness Aircrew System Advisory Panels (ASAP's) at Wright Patt. in support of the JSF program. The second one was specifically for partner nations looking to compare the incoming capability against the outgoing capability.

Those interested can read the report down below, but keep in mind there are classified elements of these simulations that are obviously not discussed by the authors

https://www.scribd.com/doc/260423310/Jo ... CVAsYkXrbK

^^ Summary for those that may not read the entire thing - Its not your standard KOPP, RAND simulation nor is the "high Level" AMRAAM PK calculations and "BVR is useless" babble that you see at some aviation forums.

[zero-one]

." Beesley said. [/i]

http://www.livescience.com/3032-fighter-jet-controversial-future-fleet.html
Honestly, a lot of material on the performance capabilities of the F-35 as it relates to a number of other aircraft like the Viper, Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Raptor. The critics just choose to ignore it...

You guys all know that I have absolute faith in the F-35's kinematic performance, however I just find it a bit difficult to believe that it's performance will come close to the F-22's.

And here's my unprofessional and totally opinionated case why.

The F-35 borrows a lot of it's aerodynamic design from the F-22 but is more tailored for range, payload and cruise efficiency.

The F-22 from the onset was built for super maneuverability and sustained supersonic speeds, which is why they designed it with the highest thrust to (weight + drag) ratio of any fighter, extra big wings, a body lifting fuselage, tail lifting surfaces, vortex lift generating chines and thrust vectoring.

the F-35 on the other hand was designed as a strike aircraft with exceptional range/loiter performance and secondary air superiority roles. It was built for high albeit not super maneuverability , increased range/loiter and cruise efficiency,

which is why the reduced the wing area, decreased the thrust to weight ratio, maintained the body lift but bulked up the fuselage increasing the fuel capacity but probably also the base drag relative to the size of the Raptor.

So with all the differences on the Raptor's aerodynamic design, I find it hard to believe that the F-22 will only offer marginal performance advantages over the F-35.

Perhaps what the test pilot means is that in certain parts of the envelope, the F-35 can closely match the F-22's performance, however on most parts, its a head and shoulders comparison.

maybe at medium to high subsonic.

Its not like the F-16 vs F-15 where the F-16 offered many advances in aerodynamic design that the F-15 didn't have, like relaxed static stability and FBW controls, the F-35 on the other hand AFAIK has no aerodynamic advances over the F-22, unless you count the divertless supersonic inlet as an advancement over the F-22's inlets. I personally don't think so.

In the end, I often imagine the F-35 as an F/A-18 with more power or an F-16 with less power but higher AOA.
More than enough maneuverability to get an enemy to optimum weapons engagement zones

[jjk]

Thanks for the links. (I've already seen these, but watched again, to be sure I hadn't missed something.)

None of these videos shows a simple, tight-radius, 360-degree turn. Lots of rolling, and some high AOA, but still, no real "tactical" turning.

Anyone have any video links that show this plane turning tightly?

I'm also waiting for this, specifications, promises and words are nice, but a video of a tight 360 turn would be more convincing...

[sferrin]

Thanks for the links. (I've already seen these, but watched again, to be sure I hadn't missed something.)

None of these videos shows a simple, tight-radius, 360-degree turn. Lots of rolling, and some high AOA, but still, no real "tactical" turning.

Anyone have any video links that show this plane turning tightly?

I'm also waiting for this, specifications, promises and words are nice, but a video of a tight 360 turn would be more convincing...

Why? Can you tell the difference between a 6G and 7G turn by looking at it on video?

[mrigdon]

Why? Can you tell the difference between a 6G and 7G turn by looking at it on video?

Depends on what music they use. If I hear "Highway to the Danger Zone", then I know the planes involved are pulling 9Gs all day.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Why? Can you tell the difference between a 6G and 7G turn by looking at it on video?

Something like that. You can time the turn and thus find the turn rate used. Speeds and G are not known, but from the videos of, for example, the JBLM 2010 airshow the F-16C and F/A-18E had very similar initial turn rates. After the first 180 degrees the speed of the SHornet slowed down considerably and the G had to be backed off, this is seen by how slow the second half of the turn was. The Viper, by comparison, seems to keep roughly the same turn rate throughout. Playing the turns side by side the first 90 degrees are nearly identical but by the time the Hornet finishes 360 the Viper had already finished and turned an extra 90 into a vertical climb. While this is VERY non-technical as there are many unknown factors (speed, G, weight, atmospheric conditions) it gives an idea of the class of turning available based on time: 16-20sec (Viper, Raptor, Typhoon) 20-24sec (Hornet, SHornet, Tomcat, Warthog, Eagle). Again, this is not a true ITR or STR comparison, but often somewhere in between and there are the many unknowns I listed.

[jjk]

None of these videos shows a simple, tight-radius, 360-degree turn. Lots of rolling, and some high AOA, but still, no real "tactical" turning.

Anyone have any video links that show this plane turning tightly?

I'm also waiting for this, specifications, promises and words are nice, but a video of a tight 360 turn would be more convincing...

Why? Can you tell the difference between a 6G and 7G turn by looking at it on video?

No, but a video like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBlP4cCRVmk would be nice and perhaps telling.

[KamenRiderBlade]

Why? Can you tell the difference between a 6G and 7G turn by looking at it on video?

Depends on what music they use. If I hear "Highway to the Danger Zone", then I know the planes involved are pulling 9Gs all day. 8)

Because we all know "Highway to the Danger Zone" gives you +2 G resistance for each pilot that listens to it while flying.
=D

[sferrin]

No, but a video like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBlP4cCRVmk would be nice and perhaps telling.

I don't know why you would think it might be telling. Even the video you show tells you nothing other than, in those specific instances, the aircraft finished their turns in a particular order (assuming the videos haven't been played with). Do you know if the aircraft were flying the same speed? Pulling the same Gs? Flying at the same altitude? Flying at comparable percentages of gross? The video tells you none of those things so, in fact, it tells you very little.